Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
dseehafer

Tirpitz's gunnery trials

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Greetings all,

 

   Some interesting information regarding Tirpitz's gunnery trials. A special thanks to Widar Thule for bringing this information to my attention! I shall quote what he said below.

 

"Some more information on “TIRPITZ” heavy artillery (38 cm) gunnery accuracy comes from real world German wartime GKdos-100 files containing actual primary source gunnery training firing exercises data, which gives the “TIRPITZ” a dispersion of 112 meters at 21 km. 

 

LyUwfv5.png

 

38cm-SKC34-2.jpg

 

Based on this primary source gunnery training firing exercises data “TIRPITZ” had the LEAST dispersion of any World War II battleship. Not only that but there are no Japanese, British or USA wartime gunnery training firing exercise records which demonstrate that any Japanese, British and/or USA battleship ever achieved a dispersion at 21 km of 112 meters during the 1940s. And that includes the “USS IOWA” class.

 

 “TIRPITZ” performed several live heavy artillery firing tests during her existence. For example in August 1941 it fired on the remote controlled target ship “HESSEN”, which was an old 140 meter long pre-dreadnought capital ship. Most interestingly, the “HESSEN” was hit 9 times by “TIRPITZ” with her 38 cm rounds at a range of 25 km (25000 meters, 27340 yards) during the tests for example. Those 9 hits at 25 km were the longest range consistent gun hits in the world by any battleship in the 1940s and this performance to my knowledge has never been equalled or outdone by any other battleship. “HESSEN” was a radio controlled target ship especially up-armoured and altered to use it for target practice. “HESSEN” could move up to 21 knots, and was turning during the gunnery practice to make it a more difficult target to hit for “TIRPITZ”. "HESSEN" could change speed, turn and actively smoke, all remote controlled."

 

Here an image of "HESSEN" being targeted by "TIPITZ":

 

rcSxkzh.png

 

 

It is also worth noting that these results were achieved in August, 1941 so we can safely assume that Tirpitz's gunnery performance in her later years would be superior thanks to the help of additional targeting equipment which Tirpitz had received over the course of her career. 

 

 

Talk about interesting stuff! :read_fish:

 

Edited by dseehafer
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[KOOKS]
Beta Testers
351 posts
10,692 battles

Experts have various oppinions, but on visual conditions (optics, helped by radar) the accurary of german ships was outstanding... ask Hood or PoW :)

 

Unfortunately that will be OP on the game, good speed and armor and nice guns? The nation of accuracy is Japan on game.

 

interesting report, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Experts have various oppinions, but on visual conditions (optics, helped by radar) the accurary of german ships was outstanding... ask Hood or PoW :)

 

Unfortunately that will be OP on the game, good speed and armor and nice guns? The nation of accuracy is Japan on game.

 

interesting report, thanks

 

Not suggesting a buff. This is a historical analysis only.

 

Thanks for your kind words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Ironic that it has pretty inaccurate guns in this game.

 

I had heard that accuracy in game is played in large part by how close the guns are to eachother. The closer they are = the more accurate they are and the further they are = the less accurate they are. This is why ships that had bad dispersion IRL (Kirov, Pensacola, New Orleans, ect...) are very accurate while ships that proved very accurate IRL (Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes) are quite inaccurate in game. But I dont know if that theory is ever been confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
646 posts
4,069 battles

I had heard that accuracy in game is played in large part by how close the guns are to eachother. The closer they are = the more accurate they are and the further they are = the less accurate they are. This is why ships that had bad dispersion IRL (Kirov, Pensacola, New Orleans, ect...) are very accurate while ships that proved very accurate IRL (Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes) are quite inaccurate in game. But I dont know if that theory is ever been confirmed.

 

Which is weird when considering the Italian cruisers, in which their guns have low accuracy while having their barrels closer together. This was due to the guns having a high muzzle velocity, so maybe WarGaming might have their algorithm wrong?:hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

Experts have various oppinions, but on visual conditions (optics, helped by radar) the accurary of german ships was outstanding... ask Hood or PoW :)

 

Unfortunately that will be OP on the game, good speed and armor and nice guns? The nation of accuracy is Japan on game.

 

interesting report, thanks

 

​If you recall, the PoW hit Bismarck several times including one hit forward that flooded her bow to the tune of about 2,000 tons of seawater...

 

I find it humorous that the Japanese are given the best gunnery accuracy when historically, their naval gunfire was really pretty pathetic overall.  Once you put radar into the mix the US followed by Britain had the most accurate gunfire.  The Germans could only keep up if the range was under 20,000 yards and it was day time in good weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

 

Which is weird when considering the Italian cruisers, in which their guns have low accuracy while having their barrels closer together. This was due to the guns having a high muzzle velocity, so maybe WarGaming might have their algorithm wrong?:hiding:

 

​They did... Oh well... It is just a game after all.  Accuracy is really more a function of the shell design, condition of the barrel, and far and away the quality of the fire control system​.  The fire control system includes not just an optical rangefinder or radar, but the electro-mechanical analog computer system along with other inputs such as wind speed and direction, and own ship's movement (on all axis).

 

See ​Naval Ordinance and Gunnery Navpers 16116-B​ for example on the details of this for WW 2 era and just post WW 2 era gunnery systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

​If you recall, the PoW hit Bismarck several times including one hit forward that flooded her bow to the tune of about 2,000 tons of seawater...

 

I find it humorous that the Japanese are given the best gunnery accuracy when historically, their naval gunfire was really pretty pathetic overall.  Once you put radar into the mix the US followed by Britain had the most accurate gunfire.  The Germans could only keep up if the range was under 20,000 yards and it was day time in good weather.

 

Early German fire control was good in any weather, light or sea condition. As was proven when the Admiral Hipper beat the living daylights out of the HMS Berwick during a winter storm on the night of December/24/1940. Berwick failed to score a single hit on Hipper in return. Radar helped the Allies catch up the the Germans. Any advantage in fire-control would have been minor after that point as German fire-control was also improving as the war went on. The Germans took a great fire-control system and made it better, the Allies took a mediocre fire-control system and made it superb. It's a horse a piece really.
Edited by dseehafer
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

 

Early German fire control was good in any weather, light or sea condition. As was proven when the Admiral Hipper beat the living daylights out of the HMS Berwick during a winter storm on the night of December/24/1940. Berwick failed to score a single hit on Hipper in return. Radar helped the Allies catch up the the Germans. Any advantage in fire-control would have been minor after that point as German fire-control was also improving as the war went on. The Germans took a great fire-control system and made it better, the Allies took a mediocre fire-control system and made it superb. It's a horse a piece really.

 

​Tell that to the crew of the Scharnhorst in 1944 when she was demolished by the RN off North Cape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
823 posts
561 battles

 

​Tell that to the crew of the Scharnhorst in 1944 when she was demolished by the RN off North Cape.

 

You mean that time that a singlular battleship with 11 inch guns was destroyed by a force composed of a much larger battleship, several cruisers and destroyers?

 

Dang, must prove that they had terrible fire control. Definitely.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

​Tell that to the crew of the Scharnhorst in 1944 when she was demolished by the RN off North Cape.

 

The fact that 2/3 of Scharnhorst's main battery was disabled from DOY's first hit was a dooming factor. If things had gone differently Scharnhorst surely would have scored a few more hits of her own. Even then, outnumbered as she was, the outcome would not have been any different.
Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

 

You mean that time that a singlular battleship with 11 inch guns was destroyed by a force composed of a much larger battleship, several cruisers and destroyers?

 

Dang, must prove that they had terrible fire control. Definitely.

 

​Yep, the one where the Duke of York opened fire on the Scharnhorst at 11,000 yards and the first knowledge the Scharnhorst's crew knew they were under attack by a British battleship was the shell hits they were taking.  Scharnhorst's fire both on British cruisers in earlier parts of the action, and against DoY proved highly inaccurate and only by luck did they manage to do even light damage.

 

As for the Scharnhorst's main battery being quickly taken out of action, that's because the British creamed her before the Germans even knew they were there.  That's the advantage of a good​ radar system versus the crap ones the Germans were using on their ships in 1944.

Edited by Murotsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
823 posts
561 battles

Well, I guess we have another confirmed 'Allies had Aimbot in 1944' believer.

 

No real use in debating him, dseehafer. You won't convince him to take logic into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

​Yep, the one where the Duke of York opened fire on the Scharnhorst at 11,000 yards and the first knowledge the Scharnhorst's crew knew they were under attack by a British battleship was the shell hits they were taking.  Scharnhorst's fire both on British cruisers in earlier parts of the action, and against DoY proved highly inaccurate and only by luck did they manage to do even light damage.

 

As for the Scharnhorst's main battery being quickly taken out of action, that's because the British creamed her before the Germans even knew they were there.  That's the advantage of a good​ radar system versus the crap ones the Germans were using on their ships in 1944.

 

Scharnhorst didnt know about DOY because her radar had been destroyed earlier by the British cruisers. So you're second point is made moot.

 

Scharnhorst destroyed Norfolk's radar and a turret and also hit ship's superstructure. Which is a little more than light damage.

Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

 

Scharnhorst didnt know about DOY because her radar had been destroyed earlier by the British cruisers. So you're second point is made moot.

 

Scharnhorst destroyed Norfolk's radar and a turret. Which is a little more than light damage.

 

​Scharnhorst had two Seetakt aboard.  One forward and one aft, both fixed to the fire control rangefinder towers.  For search purposes the tower had to be rotated.  There was no 360 degree surface search set like virtually any Allied warship would have had in 1944 aboard.  That was the problem.  Even if the forward Seetakt set hadn't been destroyed, it is likely the Scharnhorst would have been surprised.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WRGER_05.htm#Scharnhorst

 

There's also the battle off the Lofoten Islands in 1940 to consider.  The HMS Renown encountered the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau there, surprising the Germans because of light and weather conditions.  The Renown scored hits on Gneisenau first taking her out of the action, and both German ships then turned and ran rather than continue.

Edited by Murotsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

​Scharnhorst had two Seetakt aboard.  One forward and one aft, both fixed to the fire control rangefinder towers.  For search purposes the tower had to be rotated.  There was no 360 degree surface search set like virtually any Allied warship would have had in 1944 aboard.  That was the problem.  Even if the forward Seetakt set hadn't been destroyed, it is likely the Scharnhorst would have been surprised.

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WRGER_05.htm#Scharnhorst

 

Scharnhorst also had the FuMB4 samos antennae, a passive device which was capable of detecting the radiation of an enemy's radar and did not (IIRC) need to be facing the target to detect it. These were often capable of detecting ships at twice the distance of most radars but were used solely for early warnings as they were not precise enough to use in fire direction. Because they were integrated with the ship's radar for power they would have also been disabled along with the radar during the battle.
Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,874 posts
7,308 battles

Samos, Pelieu, and the like were ESM warning receivers.  They would only give a general warning of the presence of an enemy radar set and a rough range on it.  Given that the British had multiple ships tracking the Scharnhorst all with pretty much the same radars it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

 

There's also the battle off the Lofoten Islands in 1940 to consider.  The HMS Renown encountered the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau there, surprising the Germans because of light and weather conditions.  The Renown scored hits on Gneisenau first taking her out of the action, and both German ships then turned and ran rather than continue.

 

The Germans weren't surprised. Gneisenau detected Renown approaching at 04:30 and the German ships cleared for action. Because of rough weather neither side was able to engage until 35 minutes later (05:05). Gneisenau was the first to sore hits (though both shells failed to explode). It is true that Gneisenau's forward range finders and rear turret were damaged by two hits from Renown but these did not take her out of action. The Germans retreated because they mistook the Renown's escorting destroyers to be capital ships and therefore though they were outgunned.

 

 

Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,343 posts
3,378 battles

 

Scharnhorst also had the FuMB4 samos antennae, a passive device which was capable of detecting the radiation of an enemy's radar and did not (IIRC) need to be facing the target to detect it. These were often capable of detecting ships at twice the distance of most radars but were used solely for early warnings as they were not precise enough to use in fire direction. Because they were integrated with the ship's radar for power they would have also been disabled along with the radar during the battle.

 

I don't see what this guy is really trying to achieve arguing with you of all people about the specifics of German radar technology.

 

Earlier events of the battle had affected her combat effectiveness and even at full fight shape, a Scharnhorst class battleship would have trouble against a KGV class battleship, let alone it's escorting force.

 

I've known to not be a fan of the Kriegsmarine but belittling their gunnery skill is completely illogical and unfair, seeing how it was one of their main strengths.

Edited by xX_Critical_ClopOut69_Xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

 

I don't see what this guy is really trying to achieve arguing with you of all people about the specifics of German radar technology.

 

Earlier events of the battle had affected her combat effectiveness and even at full fight shape, a Scharnhorst class battleship would have trouble against a KGV class battleship, let alone it's escorting force.

 

I've known to not be a fan of the Kriegsmarine but belittling their gunnery skill is completely illogical and unfair, seeing how it was one of their main strengths.

 

He makes a fair point though. Even if Scharnhorst's FuMB4 was not disabled there were several radar-laden British ship's around. It's possible that the DOY could still sneak up on Scharnhorst in the confusion of the FuMB4 picking up so many radar devices at once.
Edited by dseehafer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
823 posts
561 battles

 

I don't see what this guy is really trying to achieve arguing with you of all people about the specifics of German radar technology.

 

Earlier events of the battle had affected her combat effectiveness and even at full fight shape, a Scharnhorst class battleship would have trouble against a KGV class battleship, let alone it's escorting force.

 

I've known to not be a fan of the Kriegsmarine but belittling their gunnery skill is completely illogical and unfair, seeing how it was one of their main strengths.

 

Exactly. He also said in another thread that apparently the Mk. 8 GFCS 'guaranteed first salvo hits'...

 

He seems just a tad biased towards the Allied powers in Naval Technology.

Edited by Zehroflcopter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,343 posts
3,378 battles

 

Exactly. He also said in another thread that apparently the Mk. 8 GFCS 'guaranteed first salvo hits'...

 

He seems just a tad biased towards the Allied powers in Naval Technology.

 

To be fair, there is a sliver of logic behind that statement. 

 

West Virginia achieved a first salvo hit from 22,800 yards against the battleship Yamashiro. She apparently also claimed a five hitting salvos out of sixteen fired, which for battleship combat is quite impressive. Iowa straddled the destroyer Nowaki on her first salvo from ranges between 32,200 and 35,700 yards while chasing said maneuvering destroyer at 32 knots. New Jersey later straddled the same ship on her fourth and sixth salvos.

 

American FCS is often toted as some finger of god level system and that is untrue however, it does have it's praises to be sung and is an absolute advantage to American ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
823 posts
561 battles

I completely agree, the American system was quite good. However, he seems to acquiesce to the 'finger of god level system' idea. He was implying not that the Mk. 8 GFCS was capable of first salvo straddling, but that it was a guarantee of it, which simply isn't true for any system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,343 posts
3,378 battles

I completely agree, the American system was quite good. However, he seems to acquiesce to the 'finger of god level system' idea. He was implying not that the Mk. 8 GFCS was capable of first salvo straddling, but that it was a guarantee of it, which simply isn't true for any system.

 

Exactly, modern guided missiles and munitions do not have a guarantee, why the hell would something made 70~ years ago be any different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×